MacFurse

irvin
LANDR is so 'good', resident salesman Anderton felt the need to clarify he does not use it on his own songs and would not use on anyone else's...lol...

The only laughs are on you, at continually making such foolish statements. If you can't understand the context of that statement, which has been explained to you over and over, then you understand nothing about the entire subject.

 
thank God i'm not looking for popularity...
 
The statements are not foolish: Anderton will not use it because he knows what he is doing. LANDR is for those who don't know what they are doing, even though it can't do the job for them. That part is pretty obvious - perhaps not to you, but that's all there's to it.


 
What I find most revealing (perhaps not to you) is that Anderton went out of his way to separate himself from LANDER by clarifying (without anyone prompting him) that he does not and would not use it on his own material or anyone else's. That tells any smart reader (your own mileage may vary) all that is needed to know what he truly thinks of LANDR - but that won't stop him from offering its 'benefits' to unsuspecting customers.
 
I must give credit to him, though: he does know his audience, as your post clearly demonstrates.
 
Happy 'mastering', with an apology to your 'clients'...lol...(makes me seem foolish...I know...)
 
 
 
 

Paul P

jbow
PLEASE do this. I am going to wait on this update. I want the option to not install Landr. I don't need it and I don't want to uninstall something that leaves behind bits and pieces. Please, give the option to update Sonar and add Landr is we want it.

You can do this now.  Just download the update yourself from your account, run the installer in windows not the CCC, and uncheck LANDR during install.  Note that I haven't done it yet, but others have.  I'm still waiting for the dust to settle.
 

Thank you Paul. I've always used CCC before and frankly this Landr may well be something I want but I'm not sure yet. I'd like to let it lay for a month or two and see how it goes with those who use it. I don't need it at the moment but when I do well, maybe it will have value for me. I'm just not sure. I am leaning toward it being a plus but IDK, I just feel like I want to wait just a little.
Thanks again, I'll DL through My Account.
 
Julien

kennywtelejazz
OK , I just got done upgrading my version of SPlat to Newburyport on one Win 10 laptop ..my test dummy ...
This was  a CCC install (non verbose )
Of course the first thing I wanted to do was try out LANDR  ...
I have a mix of a song that I have been working on ...(one I wasn't 100% happy with BTW )
My levels were conservative , I hadn't done any pre mastering or any major EQ work other than as per track ...
There was no master buss  mastering type of chain going on or even a master buss compressor to bump up my levels ...
This mix was exported as a LANDR wave ...
At first LANDR was not very intuitive for me , So I opened up the Ezine  PDF and read the instructions this time while using SONAR ...
I guess it's one thing to read the Ezine while having morning coffee , and  whole other thing all together to just dive in .
I'm gonna keep my impressions of LANDR strictly as a tool ...meaning not how it wound up on my machine or the politics or any other number of side issues that have people on the forum concerned .  
 
For me personally I'm happy LANDR was included in this months upgrade ..
A week ago I wasn't expecting it and now I have it sitting on my machine ...
Already I can see and hear that it is gonna save me a lot of time and aggravation ...
My typical workflow "MO" has been to work in SONAR for all the elements of my song creation and mixing .
When I'm in the ball park I like to export a mix out of SONAR and place it in a 3 rd party audio editing DAW and do a lot of refinements while there ...
What that means is I like to keep my SONAR project at a point where it is a least moving forwards and never backwards ...meaning my SONAR project is saved at least at a point where I am somewhat happy ....
As a result of doing things that way I may have one song with 10 or 20 orphan projects floating around ...
 
Already I can see and hear the benefit of using LANDR to preview my song while it is still in SONAR ..
That alone may save me from all those extra orphan mix's and files of my songs during various stages of development and listening ...
 
Anyway here's what I did ,
I took an export out of SONAR and uploaded that VIA LANDR , then I dialed up a Mix of the same song that I thought I was happy with and placed it on my desktop ...
that mix BTW was the best that I could do given my current situation over here .I had received crits and feedback of that mix online in various places ...
OK while listening in LANDR I had the choice to preview my song unaffected , low setting , middle setting and high setting ...Plus I had the mix I was somewhat happy with on my desktop ....
I listened to all 5 mix's ...w fresh ears ....
OK here's what happened ,
The mix I had exported out of SONAR was the one I liked the least ..remember this was a non mastered song that was still being created ,it wasn't fully prepped and it topped out at about - 12 Db ...
The song  Mix that I had posted online VIA social media turned out to be my second least liked mix  ...
BTW I had a very strong idea of what need to be done to improve the sound of that mix ...VIA folks online trying to offer constructive criticism plus my ears and my gut .... i put the song on the shelf because some of the things I need to do I still have to learn how to do ....
Now comes LANDR ...
I was actually pleasantly surprised with what LANDR had done with my song file .
The low setting was very nice and the EQ curve went to places I was afraid to go ...some frequency's were enhanced and I found it very interesting to hear with my own ears how my song would sound if I had more chops production wise and a better listening environment to mix at ....
The medium setting was actually the setting I liked the best for this song ...that in itself did surprise me at first .
the nature of the song originally was very dynamic ...it had plenty of head room before converted - 12 Db and nothing got squashed ...
I didn't even bother with the high setting ...after  10 seconds worth ...
an interesting side note .....some of the crtits and feedback I had gotten to improve the song were things LANDR did to my file ...it didn't go 100 % it hit about 70 % ...
I honestly found that interesting and because of that I'm probably end up doing a lot of free previews ...
 
I'll take all the help I can get at this point , even if it's from a Robot
 
Kenny       
 
 
 

OK, I think I understand from this that the whole idea is to have Landr inside of Sonar for ease of use. Right?
 
So, question. If I choose to DL the Sonar update VIA My Account without downloading or installing Landr, will Landr still be available to me in a couple of months if I should choose to get it? If I go that way will it install inside Sonar like it would if I were to DL it now along with the update?
 
Thanks.
J

MacFurse
Once again the only thing you demonstrate, is your lack of ability to understand what people have been saying to you over and over again. Nobody suggests this as a method to master anything. How much clearer do you need this stated?

Not to argue, but just in the interest of balance, this is the first sentence of the LANDR part of Cakewalk's "official release" statement for the Newburyport update :
 
"LANDR is integrated directly into SONAR allowing you to master your tracks instantly. LANDR uses highly developed and tested A.I. technology to profile and deliver you the most accurate master for your style and genre."

cparmerlee

kennywtelejazz
I'm gonna contribute something along the same lines once I run down a couple of disclaimers

That's a lovely song.  Nothing to feel insecure about.
 
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

You could always re-Eq the guitar fret noise and send back to LANDR.  If you paid someone you might then be actually stuck with the mastered version. (I think this is the best reason for LANDR test you audio) At least with LANDR you have the chance to redo the mastered version as many times as you like.  
Then you could choose to go with LANRD
or send to someone like:
Hank Williams
Bob Katz 
Glenn Meadows
John Vestman
Eddie Shreyer
Jay Frigoletto
Ted Jensen
Doug Sax 
Brad Blackwood
 
Also Thanks for your post Kenny
 
Max Arwood

cparmerlee
I do think it illustrates a fundamental dilemma.  While LANDR did some good things to the recording, it seems to have perked up the hi frequencies that exaggerate the finger noise.  That is very much a matter of artistic taste.  Some people might see that as an improvement.  Others might think that is a step backwards.  And there is nothing you can do about it.  One either accepts the LANDR results or else you throw the whole thing away.  That isn't a proposition that appeals to me.
 
I very much like the idea of software helping me to make better judgments.  I hate the ide of software putting me into a box.

Well its a simple thing to adjust what Landr masters in this case. Just put a eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus to compensate that and redo the master. There are a few things you can do outside the box, including using Lander to master stems and then mix them together. There are many ways to skin a cat (figuratively, I love my two cats!)

MacFurse

Paul P

MacFurse
Once again the only thing you demonstrate, is your lack of ability to understand what people have been saying to you over and over again. Nobody suggests this as a method to master anything. How much clearer do you need this stated?

Not to argue, but just in the interest of balance, this is the first sentence of the LANDR part of Cakewalk's "official release" statement for the Newburyport update :
 
"LANDR is integrated directly into SONAR allowing you to master your tracks instantly. LANDR uses highly developed and tested A.I. technology to profile and deliver you the most accurate master for your style and genre."

No argument taken. I agree the official line is that mastering is the supposed intent, but my statement relates to previous posts, and read alone, is out of context.
 
Your point is taken. I could have said it better. Thanks.

:-)

Have intellectual integrity: several posters pointed out many places where the service is being sold as "mastering". They have not taken anything out of context. Know when to stop defending an indefensible position - it's the smart and honest thing to do.

Have a nice weekend!

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Well its a simple thing to adjust what Landr masters in this case. Just put a eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus to compensate that and redo the master.

Yes, I suppose that is a possibility.  But that seems like a bas-ackward work flow to me.  The solution that I would be much happier with would be one where a product like Ozone would incorporate some AI to get me close to its idea of "the ideal master", yet still give me the ability to do additional mastering tweaks right there.  And of course that would eliminate any of the upload/download hassles and would also give me unlimited processing for a one-time investment.
 
If course, Ozone doesn't offer anything like this today, so it isn't an option.  I'm just saying if I had that option to put beside what Landr is doing, it would be a no-brainer in favor of the full mastering tool.
 
Part of my objection is the same as the resistance you have heard from the Sonar subscription model.  And this may be a generational thing.  I can afford to pay Landr's price.  But that is because I have had the financial discipline over the decades to avoid monthly, pay-as-you-go costs whenever possible.  I hate my cable and phone bills for this reason, but there is little else that I do on a monthly basis.  I don't do car loans.  If I can't afford to pay cash for a car, I wait until I can, etc.
 
In other words, I just have a big philosophical objection to these "gotcha" payment plans.  In other words, it isn't the money as much as it is the scheme.  I only mention that to encourage the good folks at Gibson/Cakewalk to not assume everybody is OK with these pay-as-you-go deals.
 
Let me say it another way.  If Cakewalk had an AI-based mastering module that was very convenient in the workflow and produced good "one-click" results while giving me the ability to make additional tweaks after the "one click", I would pay hundreds of dollars for that -- probably more than this Landr solution would cost.  But when you are asking for me to hit my charge card every month or every time I have a project to finish, I hate that.  I REALLY hate that. 

I dunno, I'm still a noob, but I know the sound I  am after. With Ozone, I pick a preset in the "genre" of the song, and go from there. After finding a good preset, I tweak a bit. With the knobs set by the preset, I have a ref point to put them back if needed.
 
I have better finished product ears than how to get there ears........so I'm gonna give LANDR a shot.

Just embedding the option for LANDR in the Platinum version of Sonar speaks volumes. I don't care what Anderton or any of the Cakewalk big shots say (and you have to question why they're being so adamant and almost defensive about it), no professional or semi-professional or even serious sound hobbyist cares anything about LANDR. Sticking such an amateur, unproven, newb service portal into what's ostensibly a serious DAW is... misguided at best. I'm actually a little ashamed of using Sonar now. How can you expect to be seen as a professional DAW, when you drop in such a joke of a service. It belongs in an Android or iPhone app. Not a top-tier DAW.
 
I don't care how many times you say it... anyone you have mixing your song, that doesn't know how to get decent levels and EQ quickly for session demos... you would NOT want mixing your song. All of the variables in just mixing are much harder to achieve correctly than a rough master at a decent level.
 
This is aimed squarely at amateurs that have no idea how to get the song they just "mixed" to sound anything close to being "like the radio", or "like a CD". As such... it has no business whatsoever being in the top-tier version of Sonar by default.
 
I'm glad I ran across this before I had a chance to update. At the very least... this should have been an option that defaults to NOT install... to opt into. Not default installation in your highest price point DAW version.
 
I repeat... seriously unprofessional service, seriously unprofessional implementation, seriously unprofessional priorities by Cakewalk and Roland, if they have any intention of trying to appeal to a professional market. But then again... all the serious millions/billions are in economy of scale rather than boutique, well made products for professionals.
 
...just so you know how to count my vote.

javahut
Just embedding the option for LANDR in the Platinum version of Sonar speaks volumes. I don't care what Anderton or any of the Cakewalk big shots say (and you have to question why they're being so adamant and almost defensive about it), no professional or semi-professional or even serious sound hobbyist cares anything about LANDR. Sticking such an amateur, unproven, newb service portal into what's ostensibly a serious DAW is... misguided at best. I'm actually a little ashamed of using Sonar now. How can you expect to be seen as a professional DAW, when you drop in such a joke of a service. It belongs in an Android or iPhone app. Not a top-tier DAW.
 
...just so you know how to count my vote.

 
With respect, I count your vote as not understanding what this is about. I take it you assume that this is supposed to replace a mastering engineer, and people are supposed to master their music with it. That is just one aspect of what this is about. It is a tool that can be used in many ways. Mastering music with LANDR doesn't interest me at all. Yet as a professional mastering engineer who's made good bucks from same, I am still glad it's here, for reasons I've explained in the eZine and in forum posts.
 
I'm really tired of having to explain the same thing over and over and over again. Either people have looked into it, seen that it's more than a one-trick pony, and understand why it's useful, or they don't. You don't, and that's fine. I'm not going to argue with you, but I am going to take advantage of this tool in a way that is appropriate for me. And it doesn't involve mastering peoples' music with it. 
 
Oh, and get used to it. Bitwig and Studio One are next. Apparently they've figured out why it's useful as well.

irvin
Doesn't the theory go that the people who might find LANDR useful would not know how to 'put an eq notch on the frequencies that you don't want on the guitar bus'?

I had an epiphany while reading Irvin's various exchanges. Everybody's opinion is right about LANDR...depending on how they define "mastering."
 
Here's an analogy. Years ago, TEAC came out with the 3340 4-track recorder that could do overdubs, and people started putting studios in their homes. They would say "I have a recording studio" because that was the only term that existed. Professional studios got all bent out of shape. "Those aren't REAL recording studios!!" Then someone coined the term "home studio," and Marty Porter of EQ magazine coined the term "project studio," which was more about doing actual projects than just having fun recording at home. Now we had terms that accurately described different types of recording studios. If someone said "I have a home studio," no professional got bent out of shape.
 
It is indeed true that mastering used to be an incredibly difficult discipline, because working with vinyl demanded it. Every decision was a compromise. Digital audio has eliminated most of those constraints, and it no longer became necessary to have the same kind of esoteric knowledge or training - just really good ears, good acoustics, and the knowledge of how to use tools like dynamics control and equalization. 
 
As the LANDR site itself says, "The polish and balance achieved through the subtle adjustments of a skilled mastering engineer is not something we would ever diminish." They also said in their press release that LANDR is not intended to replace professional mastering engineers, but complement them.
 
Those who are dissing LANDR should take the preceding paragraph at face value, and keep reading.
 
It used to be that all recording was done by professional musicians in professional recording studios using professional engineers, producers, and mastering engineers. The world is no longer that way. There are millions of people recording audio on everything from old iPhones to TASCAM hand-helds to flip-cams to 2" 24-tracks they maintain lovingly.
 
For years I've differentiated between two types of mastering. One I call "Mastering with a capital 'M'," defined as mission-critical work that affected a career, and needed to be done by a pro mastering engineer with a solid track record and preferably, a boatload of platinum albums on the wall. 
 
If that's the only way you define "mastering," you will think LANDR is ridiculous, and I'm not going to argue with you because according to how you define mastering, you're right.
 
However as the world has changed, there is a need for what I call "mastering with a small 'm'." I define this as taking a mix and simply having it sound better after you're done with it than it sounded before. 35 years ago, bands didn't have web sites for posting their live gigs. Consumers didn't have iPhones they used to record their daughter's piano recitals, or GoPros to record weddings. Churches weren't recording sermons, and corporate presenters didn't record their presentations. Nor did musicians have an incredible array of affordable professional tools at their disposal, regardless of whether they had the ability to use all of them or not.
 
None of these people was going to hire a professional mastering engineer to do "mastering with a small 'm'." Sure, maybe they knew someone with a decent recording setup, who as a favor would tweak things a little bit and make them sound better. But by and large, they just lived with bad sound. 
 
If your definition of mastering also encompasses "mastering with a small 'm'," then LANDR has major validity.
 
Next topic: LANDR should not be in a professional DAW.
 
Let's get real: a professional DAW costs a few hundred dollars. It is within the range of everyone; SONAR Artist costs $99. Many people using this DAW will not know about mastering. They will be making music for themselves or their friends. They may write songs that would put Javahut's songwriting abilities to shame, but they don't know how to master, and there's no way they can afford a pro mastering engineer. They may still be trying to figure out how to mix.
 
So what are we to do? Tell them "go to hell"? That would seem rather rude. Why not give them a tool that doesn't cost them anything to try, and if what comes out is better than what goes in...who has a problem with that?
 
Now, let's suppose they do want to pay a mastering engineer to master their songs. My first question to any client is if they have a particular "sound" in mind, and they'll usually name a favorite recording. It would be much better if they would try the three different LANDR options and be able to say "We want to sound like [fill in the option]." Great, now I have frame of reference as to whether they want minimal processing or want to win the rock and roll arms race. (Granted, I will try to talk them out of it if the latter, but...ultimately the customer is always right.) 
 
I've given plenty of other examples during the course of these LANDR threads of how LANDR can help a professional mastering engineer educate their clients in order to avoid the back-and-forth that can sometimes occur, so I won't bother repeating myself. 
 
Tools are tools. They do nothing by themselves, it is up to the skill of an individual to decide how to apply it. You can use a hammer to kill someone, or build a shelter. The hammer doesn't care.
 
If you define "mastering" as meaning ONLY work done by a professional human being who is capable of making nuanced creative decisions, then of course you're going to diss LANDR. If you think of "mastering" as making something sound better than it did originally, LANDR is going to help a lot of people...including those professionals who care enough about their clients to educate them, because LANDR provides a powerful tool for education.